“Nobody Really Got Hurt”—The Legitimization of the Grey Area of Sexual Violence and the Reflection of Gender Roles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done for completing this paper. In my view it can be an important addition to the literature in the field, but it needs some revisions and further clarifications in some sections.

Overall, the paper needs more consonance between what it sets out to do and what it does. For example, the main goal described in the abstract is that “this study aimed to explore university students' perceptions and legitimization of the grey area of SV, as well as potential gender differences in these perceptions” but the methodology chosen of having two different vignettes with differences just on the sex of the perpetrator and victim applied to similar groups indicates that the main goal is to compare students perceptions of the grey area of sv based on the gender of those involved. The way the goal is worded, followed by the finding in the abstract that “female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive” makes it seem the focus is only on the gender differences between participants and their opinions, so the methodology comes a bit of a surprise which shouldn’t be case, the goal and main findings need to be more explicit in the abstract.

The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems misleading, in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence. Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis.

The introduction/literature review should also discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent. This section should more explicitly discuss the importance of the paper.

In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.

In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc. Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?

Given that for a crime to be recorded it requires violence or serious threat, could that influence the results and the opinions of those surveyed? Particularly considering most students are from a law, criminology and psychology background which are more likely to have more in-depth knowledge about SV.

How were the scenarios developed? What was the rationale behind the aspects included?

Given the emphasis on sex, all quotes should be contextualised with the sex of the participant.

The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context – e.g., the potential importance of the legal criminal definition; some of the quotes such as “It was a clear case of sexual harassment, but there was never a position of force or violence towards the victim” may indicate a knowledge of legislation.

This argument “However, it should be emphasized that opinions diverged concerning male victims since 50.6% of participants considered it to be frequent, and 49.4% classified it as not frequent (see Table 9). This disparity likely reflects the broader societal tendency to underrecognize male victims, with what is reported likely not corresponding at all to reality” makes it seem like sexual violence is not a gendered crime which goes against what has been consistently found in the literature. Needs clarification.  

Is this sentence “allegations from female victims and male aggressors are generally regarded as more credible than those from male victims of a female aggressor” a conclusion from the study or from the literature?

Author Response

Revised Article

We thank the valuable insights of the inputs of these revisions and are glad to address the issues raised, as follows:

 

First Revisor

“The way the goal is worded, followed by the finding in the abstract that “female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive” makes it seem the focus is only on the gender differences between participants and their opinions, so the methodology comes a bit of a surprise which shouldn’t be case, the goal and main findings need to be more explicit in the abstract.” 

A: Thank you for this input. We agree that the paper needed more clarity in that sentence, and we have now refined it. We also amended the abstract to clarify the main goal and the results achieved.

 

“The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems misleading, in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence.”

A: Thank you for your comment. We changed this information. As pointed out, despite the existence of this perception, only a minority of the sample considered it so.

 

“Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis.”

A: Thank you for your question. We agree that this information might not be precise. However, we did find that most women recognized the behaviors as abusive, while men showed ambivalence, for example, in the male victim scenario. This was verified in the quantitative analysis. However, we understand the impact of using the word “significantly,” as we may be misrepresenting the results. We have altered the information to make it more concise.

 

“The introduction/literature review should also discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent. This section should more explicitly discuss the importance of the paper.

A: Thank you for your input. We have developed this section and added more references corroborating this idea.

 

“In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.”

A: We have added information that addresses this issue. Thank you for this observation. 

 

“In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc. Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?”

A: Thank you for feedback, it is very pertinent. We added information about the approval and translation process of the quotes. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of ISPA,  protocol no. I-014-06-25, 2025. The translation of the materials was conducted by the first author in collaboration with the co-authors. In line with ethical procedures, participants were provided with a debriefing at the end of the survey. Additionally, the research team’s contact information was made available so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

 

”Given that for a crime to be recorded it requires violence or serious threat, could that influence the results and the opinions of those surveyed? Particularly considering most students are from a law, criminology and psychology background which are more likely to have more in-depth knowledge about SV.

A: We appreciate your comment. We also believe that the academic background of the participants may have effectively influenced their perceptions on this issue. However, we would like to clarify that, in our study, the concept of “violence” is understood in a broader sense, consistent with legal and criminological definitions. Coercion, intimidation, and verbal aggression are recognised forms of violence and are integral to the concept of sexual violence as a crime. In our perspective, limiting violence to physical acts would overlook these critical dimensions. Our analysis therefore considers both physical and non-physical forms of violence, in line with established conceptual frameworks in the field.

 

“How were the scenarios developed? What was the rationale behind the aspects included?”

A:  The hypothetical scenarios were developed using the Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012) and relevant literature (McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Metz, Myers & Wallace, 2021; Nolan, 2018), ensuring an ambiguous form of sexual violence and harassment to capture their complexity while avoiding scenarios that were potentially painful or likely to generate a strong emotional impact. The vignette methodology requires the formulation of hypothetical but realistic situations, thus we chose to develop plausible descriptions in which participants could recognize and identify themselves. Fictional characters with common Portuguese names (“Maria” and “João”) were used.

 

“Given the emphasis on sex, all quotes should be contextualised with the sex of the participant.” 

A:  Thank you for the observation. We have now added information regarding the sex and age of the participant on each quote.

 

“The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context.”

A: Thank you. We have developed this argument and added more references corroborating this idea.

 

“This argument “However, it should be emphasized that opinions diverged concerning male victims since 50.6% of participants considered it to be frequent, and 49.4% classified it as not frequent (see Table 9). This disparity likely reflects the broader societal tendency to underrecognize male victims, with what is reported likely not corresponding at all to reality” makes it seem like sexual violence is not a gendered crime which goes against what has been consistently found in the literature. Needs clarification.”

A: Thank you for this observation. We agree that this needs more clarification. These results may illustrate the persistent underrecognition and social invisibility of male victimization, which does not contradict that women are the primary victims. 

 

“Is this sentence “allegations from female victims and male aggressors are generally regarded as more credible than those from male victims of a female aggressor” a conclusion from the study or from the literature?”

A: It’s a conclusion from the study. We asked participants if, based on the scenario presented, the victim's allegations would be considered more credible, if the victim and the perpetrator were of the opposite sex to what was described. Table 3 shows that, in terms of the perceived credibility of the allegation, 82.7% of the sample considered that it would not be credible in a situation with a female aggressor and a male victim. In contrast, Table 4 shows that 85.5% of the sample considered that a scenario with a female victim and a male aggressor would be more credible.Thank you.

 

Second Revisor

 

“Most notably, the abstract is a little too short and would benefit from the inclusion of the findings, even if it is just a mention of the overarching theme of “Severity” and its 4 subthemes.”

A: Thank you for your observation. We’ve arranged that. 

 

“It is recommended that the authors include a note around the statistics to highlight that these rates of SV are heavily impacted by underreporting and it is likely that these rates are much higher than what is officially reported.”

A: Changes have been made on this. Thank you.

 

“Line 99 to 101 needs a citation”

A: Thank you for this observation. We added a citation. 

 

“There is a lot of existing research around SV victim-blaming and the media, it would be good to see the authors engage with a little more research here.” 

A:  We have added some information on this interesting topic. Thank you for your input.

 

“There may be value in adding a small section surrounding the rape myths that impact male victim-survivors as one of the scenarios look at male victims. Consider engaging with Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson 1992 and Chapleau, Oswald & Russell 2008.”

A: Thank you for this comment, it is very pertinent. We have added information on this. 

 

“The overarching theme of ‘severity’ would benefit from a brief definition or description. Even if it is just a line or two.” 

A: Thank you for your feedback. We have added information to make it more explicit.

 

“Something for consideration: there may be added value in adding gender and age alongside the participants’ quotes”

A:  Thank you for this observation. We’ve added that information. 

 

“Line 505 to 507 – consider adding some literature here around the impact of rape myths on male victim-survivors of sexual violence, there is a lot of research out there that addresses this. This discussion point could also be expanded on.”

A: Thank you for your feedback. We added more information and explored this point.

 

“Line 559 to 573 needs more engage with literature here, consider searching “male victims of sexual assault and luck” in Google scholar, you should find some recent and highly valuable pieces here.

A: We have added some discussion on this. Thank you for your input.

 

“Iine 209 and 210: it should be ‘seven men’ not ‘seven man’. This issue appears multiple times throughout this section. Please review.”

A: This has been corrected. Thank you for this observation.

 

Third Revisor

“Overall, the paper needs a clearer and more consistent distinction between sex and gender. The terms appear to be used interchangeably, and the authors say they are undertaking a gendered analysis of responses, but they have only collected participants sex, not gender.”

A: Thank you for your feedback. Changes were made on this issue. 

 

“Additionally, the analysis could give greater credit to participants for their often thoughtful and nuanced engagement with gendered norms. Many responses reflect a sophisticated understanding of how gender shapes perceptions of sexual violence, and acknowledging this more explicitly would strengthen the paper.”

A: We thank you for this suggestion, and we agree it makes a lot of sense. We’ve now explored this in the discussion section. 

 

“Finally, while some participants minimised the scenario, it is not sufficiently acknowledged that the majority of respondents did view the situation as somewhat or very serious—this important finding should be more clearly reflected in the discussion.”

 A: Thank you. However, we do agree that the results do show that the majority of the respondents did view the situation as somewhat or very serious. In Table 3, we can see that 86.5% had that perception, and in Table 4, 86.7% also viewed the scenario as somewhat or very serious. 

 

“Your review currently presents statistics on sexual violence in binary terms (men and women), but does not include data on LGBTQ+ communities, who experience disproportionately high rates of sexual violence—particularly trans and gender diverse people. Including this information would offer a more inclusive and accurate account of prevalence and align with best practices in the field.”

 A: Thank you for your suggestion. This study explored sexual violence in binary terms and in hetero-normative affective relationships. Nevertheless, we agree that it is relevant to include data on LGBTQ+ communities. On that thought, we added information about this in the Literature review section. 

 

“You might also consider integrating discussion of other intersecting factors (e.g., race, disability, migration status) that can increase vulnerability to sexual violence, to deepen the intersectional framing of your review.”

A: We thank you for this suggestion, and we agree it makes a lot of sense. However, we consider that it would be more an issue for future recommendations than to consider in our discussion, since as it is not aligned with the focus of our study, it would drift away from the core ideas. Nevertheless, since we consider this a very interesting suggestion, we include it in future studies suggestions.

 

“Your analysis focuses on sex-based rather than gender-based differences.” 

A: We thank you. This has been corrected.

 

“Why was sexuality not collected in the demographics? It would be helpful to explain why sexuality was not included as a demographic variable, particularly given the growing body of research suggesting that sexual orientation may shape students’ experiences and perceptions of sexual violence.”

A: Thank you for your input! The primary focus of this work was to examine the role of broader social perceptions and subtle forms of sexual violence, in binary terms and in hetero-normative cis affective relationships, without stratifying results by sexual orientation. While acknowledging that sexual orientation may indeed shape experiences and perceptions of sexual violence, such analyses were beyond the scope of the present study. We recognize, however, that the absence of this variable is a limitation. Future research would benefit from incorporating sexual orientation as a demographic factor, thereby allowing a more nuanced understanding of how sexuality may intersect with experiences and perceptions of sexual violence.

 

“Since your analysis includes a gendered reading of student responses, it would enhance the depth and interpretive clarity of your findings to include demographic details (e.g., sex and age) alongside each quoted participant.”

A: We added this information now. Thank you.

 

“In the first paragraph of the discussion, the central argument could be clarified, as it’s currently a little difficult to follow.”

A: We have clarified it to make it easier to understand and follow. Thank you for this feedback.

 

“The statement, “Conversely, the situation also seems to have been recognized as not very serious or not serious at all, since it did not involve an extreme form of SV (e.g., rape),” would benefit from greater precision.”

A: Thank you. This has now been clarified. 

 

“The identification and validation of SV therefore seems to depend on the occurrence of extreme and violent outcome, such as rape, and the involvement of strangers…”, it would be useful to reconcile this claim with your earlier finding that the majority of participants did view the scenario as somewhat or very serious.”

A: Thank you. We’ve changed this. 

 

Fourth Revisor

“Overall, the paper needs more thought between what it sets out to do and what it does. For example, the main goal described in the abstract is that “this study aimed to explore university students' perceptions and legitimization of the grey area of SV, as well as potential gender differences in these perceptions” but the methodology chosen of having two different vignettes with differences just on the sex of the perpetrator and victim applied to similar groups indicates that the main goal is to compare students perceptions of the grey area of sv based on the gender of those involved.”

A: Thank you for your valuable feedback! We agree that the paper needed more clarity at this level, and we have changed this information. 

 

“The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems inaccurate, as in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence.”

A: Thank you. We’ve changed this. 

 

“Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviours as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis. It seems overstated.”

A: Thank you for your comment. We changed this information.

 

“The introduction/literature review should also briefly discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent.”

A: We have added literature that addresses this issue. Thank you for this observation. 

 

“This section should more explicitly discuss the context and importance of the paper.”

A: We have explored more of this. Thank you for your input. 

 

“In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.”

A: Thank you. We added information on this. 

 

“In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc.”

A: Thank you. We added information on this.

 

“Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?”

A: We did give our contact information, so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

 

“The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context – e.g., the potential importance of the legal criminal definition; some of the quotes such as “It was a clear case of sexual harassment, but there was never a position of force or violence towards the victim” may indicate a knowledge of legislation.”

A: We have added some discussion on this. Thank you for your input.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review: "Nobody really got hurt" - The Legitimization of the Grey Area of Sexual Violence and the Reflection of Gender Roles

 

Overview

This paper presents highly relevant and deeply important insight into the more subtle or less overt forms of SV from the perspective of university students. The piece is very well written and it is clear that the authors have put a lot of thought and consideration into the presentation of the data – they should be proud of the quality of this work. Based on my review there are a few minor areas of improvement that could boost the piece even further. Most notably, the abstract is a little too short and would benefit from the inclusion of the findings, even if it is just a mention of the overarching theme of “Severity” and its 4 subthemes. There also needed to be a stronger discussion around the concept of luck for male victim-survivors of sexual violence. Please see my comments in the “discussion” section.

Abstract

• The authors need to add greater discussion of the findings here, such as mentioning the overarching theme of “Severity” and its 4 subthemes

Introduction

• It is recommended that the authors include a note around the statistics to highlight that these rates of SV are heavily impacted by underreporting and it is likely that these rates are much higher than what is officially reported.
• Line 99 to 101 needs a citation
• There is a lot of existing research around SV victim-blaming and the media, it would be good to see the authors engage with a little more research here.
• Introduction is really strong and clear, does well to provide a brief overview of this expansive field, whilst also introducing newer concepts like ‘grey areas’
• There may be value in adding a small section surrounding the rape myths that impact male victim-survivors as one of the scenarios look at male victims. Consider engaging with Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson 1992 and Chapleau, Oswald & Russell 2008.

Methodology

• The overarching theme of ‘severity’ would benefit from a brief definition or description. Even if it is just a line or two.

Findings

• Something for consideration: there may be added value in adding gender and age alongside the participants’ quotes to give greater context to the comments made. Especially since this paper is looking at gender differences and perspectives. That said, the gender breakdown at the end of the section is fantastic.
• The use of quotes is excellent, really well done here!

Discussion

• Line 505 to 507 – consider adding some literature here around the impact of rape myths on male victim-survivors of sexual violence, there is a lot of research out there that addresses this. This discussion point could also be expanded on.
• Line 559 to 573 needs more engage with literature here, consider searching “male victims of sexual assault and luck” in Google scholar, you should find some recent and highly valuable pieces here.

Conclusion

• No comments. Very strong.

Minor spelling and grammar issues

• Iine 209 and 210: it should be ‘seven men’ not ‘seven man’. This issue appears multiple times throughout this section. Please review.

Author Response

Revised Article

We thank the valuable insights of the inputs of these revisions and are glad to address the issues raised, as follows:

 

First Revisor

“The way the goal is worded, followed by the finding in the abstract that “female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive” makes it seem the focus is only on the gender differences between participants and their opinions, so the methodology comes a bit of a surprise which shouldn’t be case, the goal and main findings need to be more explicit in the abstract.” 

A: Thank you for this input. We agree that the paper needed more clarity in that sentence, and we have now refined it. We also amended the abstract to clarify the main goal and the results achieved.

 

“The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems misleading, in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence.”

A: Thank you for your comment. We changed this information. As pointed out, despite the existence of this perception, only a minority of the sample considered it so.

 

“Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis.”

A: Thank you for your question. We agree that this information might not be precise. However, we did find that most women recognized the behaviors as abusive, while men showed ambivalence, for example, in the male victim scenario. This was verified in the quantitative analysis. However, we understand the impact of using the word “significantly,” as we may be misrepresenting the results. We have altered the information to make it more concise.

 

“The introduction/literature review should also discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent. This section should more explicitly discuss the importance of the paper.

A: Thank you for your input. We have developed this section and added more references corroborating this idea.

 

“In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.”

A: We have added information that addresses this issue. Thank you for this observation. 

 

“In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc. Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?”

A: Thank you for feedback, it is very pertinent. We added information about the approval and translation process of the quotes. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of ISPA,  protocol no. I-014-06-25, 2025. The translation of the materials was conducted by the first author in collaboration with the co-authors. In line with ethical procedures, participants were provided with a debriefing at the end of the survey. Additionally, the research team’s contact information was made available so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

 

”Given that for a crime to be recorded it requires violence or serious threat, could that influence the results and the opinions of those surveyed? Particularly considering most students are from a law, criminology and psychology background which are more likely to have more in-depth knowledge about SV.

A: We appreciate your comment. We also believe that the academic background of the participants may have effectively influenced their perceptions on this issue. However, we would like to clarify that, in our study, the concept of “violence” is understood in a broader sense, consistent with legal and criminological definitions. Coercion, intimidation, and verbal aggression are recognised forms of violence and are integral to the concept of sexual violence as a crime. In our perspective, limiting violence to physical acts would overlook these critical dimensions. Our analysis therefore considers both physical and non-physical forms of violence, in line with established conceptual frameworks in the field.

 

“How were the scenarios developed? What was the rationale behind the aspects included?”

A:  The hypothetical scenarios were developed using the Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012) and relevant literature (McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Metz, Myers & Wallace, 2021; Nolan, 2018), ensuring an ambiguous form of sexual violence and harassment to capture their complexity while avoiding scenarios that were potentially painful or likely to generate a strong emotional impact. The vignette methodology requires the formulation of hypothetical but realistic situations, thus we chose to develop plausible descriptions in which participants could recognize and identify themselves. Fictional characters with common Portuguese names (“Maria” and “João”) were used.

 

“Given the emphasis on sex, all quotes should be contextualised with the sex of the participant.” 

A:  Thank you for the observation. We have now added information regarding the sex and age of the participant on each quote.

 

“The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context.”

A: Thank you. We have developed this argument and added more references corroborating this idea.

 

“This argument “However, it should be emphasized that opinions diverged concerning male victims since 50.6% of participants considered it to be frequent, and 49.4% classified it as not frequent (see Table 9). This disparity likely reflects the broader societal tendency to underrecognize male victims, with what is reported likely not corresponding at all to reality” makes it seem like sexual violence is not a gendered crime which goes against what has been consistently found in the literature. Needs clarification.”

A: Thank you for this observation. We agree that this needs more clarification. These results may illustrate the persistent underrecognition and social invisibility of male victimization, which does not contradict that women are the primary victims. 

 

“Is this sentence “allegations from female victims and male aggressors are generally regarded as more credible than those from male victims of a female aggressor” a conclusion from the study or from the literature?”

A: It’s a conclusion from the study. We asked participants if, based on the scenario presented, the victim's allegations would be considered more credible, if the victim and the perpetrator were of the opposite sex to what was described. Table 3 shows that, in terms of the perceived credibility of the allegation, 82.7% of the sample considered that it would not be credible in a situation with a female aggressor and a male victim. In contrast, Table 4 shows that 85.5% of the sample considered that a scenario with a female victim and a male aggressor would be more credible.Thank you.

 

Second Revisor

 

“Most notably, the abstract is a little too short and would benefit from the inclusion of the findings, even if it is just a mention of the overarching theme of “Severity” and its 4 subthemes.”

A: Thank you for your observation. We’ve arranged that. 

 

“It is recommended that the authors include a note around the statistics to highlight that these rates of SV are heavily impacted by underreporting and it is likely that these rates are much higher than what is officially reported.”

A: Changes have been made on this. Thank you.

 

“Line 99 to 101 needs a citation”

A: Thank you for this observation. We added a citation. 

 

“There is a lot of existing research around SV victim-blaming and the media, it would be good to see the authors engage with a little more research here.” 

A:  We have added some information on this interesting topic. Thank you for your input.

 

“There may be value in adding a small section surrounding the rape myths that impact male victim-survivors as one of the scenarios look at male victims. Consider engaging with Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson 1992 and Chapleau, Oswald & Russell 2008.”

A: Thank you for this comment, it is very pertinent. We have added information on this. 

 

“The overarching theme of ‘severity’ would benefit from a brief definition or description. Even if it is just a line or two.” 

A: Thank you for your feedback. We have added information to make it more explicit.

 

“Something for consideration: there may be added value in adding gender and age alongside the participants’ quotes”

A:  Thank you for this observation. We’ve added that information. 

 

“Line 505 to 507 – consider adding some literature here around the impact of rape myths on male victim-survivors of sexual violence, there is a lot of research out there that addresses this. This discussion point could also be expanded on.”

A: Thank you for your feedback. We added more information and explored this point.

 

“Line 559 to 573 needs more engage with literature here, consider searching “male victims of sexual assault and luck” in Google scholar, you should find some recent and highly valuable pieces here.

A: We have added some discussion on this. Thank you for your input.

 

“Iine 209 and 210: it should be ‘seven men’ not ‘seven man’. This issue appears multiple times throughout this section. Please review.”

A: This has been corrected. Thank you for this observation.

 

Third Revisor

“Overall, the paper needs a clearer and more consistent distinction between sex and gender. The terms appear to be used interchangeably, and the authors say they are undertaking a gendered analysis of responses, but they have only collected participants sex, not gender.”

A: Thank you for your feedback. Changes were made on this issue. 

 

“Additionally, the analysis could give greater credit to participants for their often thoughtful and nuanced engagement with gendered norms. Many responses reflect a sophisticated understanding of how gender shapes perceptions of sexual violence, and acknowledging this more explicitly would strengthen the paper.”

A: We thank you for this suggestion, and we agree it makes a lot of sense. We’ve now explored this in the discussion section. 

 

“Finally, while some participants minimised the scenario, it is not sufficiently acknowledged that the majority of respondents did view the situation as somewhat or very serious—this important finding should be more clearly reflected in the discussion.”

 A: Thank you. However, we do agree that the results do show that the majority of the respondents did view the situation as somewhat or very serious. In Table 3, we can see that 86.5% had that perception, and in Table 4, 86.7% also viewed the scenario as somewhat or very serious. 

 

“Your review currently presents statistics on sexual violence in binary terms (men and women), but does not include data on LGBTQ+ communities, who experience disproportionately high rates of sexual violence—particularly trans and gender diverse people. Including this information would offer a more inclusive and accurate account of prevalence and align with best practices in the field.”

 A: Thank you for your suggestion. This study explored sexual violence in binary terms and in hetero-normative affective relationships. Nevertheless, we agree that it is relevant to include data on LGBTQ+ communities. On that thought, we added information about this in the Literature review section. 

 

“You might also consider integrating discussion of other intersecting factors (e.g., race, disability, migration status) that can increase vulnerability to sexual violence, to deepen the intersectional framing of your review.”

A: We thank you for this suggestion, and we agree it makes a lot of sense. However, we consider that it would be more an issue for future recommendations than to consider in our discussion, since as it is not aligned with the focus of our study, it would drift away from the core ideas. Nevertheless, since we consider this a very interesting suggestion, we include it in future studies suggestions.

 

“Your analysis focuses on sex-based rather than gender-based differences.” 

A: We thank you. This has been corrected.

 

“Why was sexuality not collected in the demographics? It would be helpful to explain why sexuality was not included as a demographic variable, particularly given the growing body of research suggesting that sexual orientation may shape students’ experiences and perceptions of sexual violence.”

A: Thank you for your input! The primary focus of this work was to examine the role of broader social perceptions and subtle forms of sexual violence, in binary terms and in hetero-normative cis affective relationships, without stratifying results by sexual orientation. While acknowledging that sexual orientation may indeed shape experiences and perceptions of sexual violence, such analyses were beyond the scope of the present study. We recognize, however, that the absence of this variable is a limitation. Future research would benefit from incorporating sexual orientation as a demographic factor, thereby allowing a more nuanced understanding of how sexuality may intersect with experiences and perceptions of sexual violence.

 

“Since your analysis includes a gendered reading of student responses, it would enhance the depth and interpretive clarity of your findings to include demographic details (e.g., sex and age) alongside each quoted participant.”

A: We added this information now. Thank you.

 

“In the first paragraph of the discussion, the central argument could be clarified, as it’s currently a little difficult to follow.”

A: We have clarified it to make it easier to understand and follow. Thank you for this feedback.

 

“The statement, “Conversely, the situation also seems to have been recognized as not very serious or not serious at all, since it did not involve an extreme form of SV (e.g., rape),” would benefit from greater precision.”

A: Thank you. This has now been clarified. 

 

“The identification and validation of SV therefore seems to depend on the occurrence of extreme and violent outcome, such as rape, and the involvement of strangers…”, it would be useful to reconcile this claim with your earlier finding that the majority of participants did view the scenario as somewhat or very serious.”

A: Thank you. We’ve changed this. 

 

Fourth Revisor

“Overall, the paper needs more thought between what it sets out to do and what it does. For example, the main goal described in the abstract is that “this study aimed to explore university students' perceptions and legitimization of the grey area of SV, as well as potential gender differences in these perceptions” but the methodology chosen of having two different vignettes with differences just on the sex of the perpetrator and victim applied to similar groups indicates that the main goal is to compare students perceptions of the grey area of sv based on the gender of those involved.”

A: Thank you for your valuable feedback! We agree that the paper needed more clarity at this level, and we have changed this information. 

 

“The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems inaccurate, as in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence.”

A: Thank you. We’ve changed this. 

 

“Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviours as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis. It seems overstated.”

A: Thank you for your comment. We changed this information.

 

“The introduction/literature review should also briefly discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent.”

A: We have added literature that addresses this issue. Thank you for this observation. 

 

“This section should more explicitly discuss the context and importance of the paper.”

A: We have explored more of this. Thank you for your input. 

 

“In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.”

A: Thank you. We added information on this. 

 

“In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc.”

A: Thank you. We added information on this.

 

“Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?”

A: We did give our contact information, so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

 

“The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context – e.g., the potential importance of the legal criminal definition; some of the quotes such as “It was a clear case of sexual harassment, but there was never a position of force or violence towards the victim” may indicate a knowledge of legislation.”

A: We have added some discussion on this. Thank you for your input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Revised Article

We thank the valuable insights of the inputs of these revisions and are glad to address the issues raised, as follows:

 

First Revisor

“The way the goal is worded, followed by the finding in the abstract that “female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive” makes it seem the focus is only on the gender differences between participants and their opinions, so the methodology comes a bit of a surprise which shouldn’t be case, the goal and main findings need to be more explicit in the abstract.” 

A: Thank you for this input. We agree that the paper needed more clarity in that sentence, and we have now refined it. We also amended the abstract to clarify the main goal and the results achieved.

 

“The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems misleading, in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence.”

A: Thank you for your comment. We changed this information. As pointed out, despite the existence of this perception, only a minority of the sample considered it so.

 

“Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviors as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis.”

A: Thank you for your question. We agree that this information might not be precise. However, we did find that most women recognized the behaviors as abusive, while men showed ambivalence, for example, in the male victim scenario. This was verified in the quantitative analysis. However, we understand the impact of using the word “significantly,” as we may be misrepresenting the results. We have altered the information to make it more concise.

 

“The introduction/literature review should also discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent. This section should more explicitly discuss the importance of the paper.

A: Thank you for your input. We have developed this section and added more references corroborating this idea.

 

“In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.”

A: We have added information that addresses this issue. Thank you for this observation. 

 

“In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc. Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?”

A: Thank you for feedback, it is very pertinent. We added information about the approval and translation process of the quotes. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of ISPA,  protocol no. I-014-06-25, 2025. The translation of the materials was conducted by the first author in collaboration with the co-authors. In line with ethical procedures, participants were provided with a debriefing at the end of the survey. Additionally, the research team’s contact information was made available so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

 

”Given that for a crime to be recorded it requires violence or serious threat, could that influence the results and the opinions of those surveyed? Particularly considering most students are from a law, criminology and psychology background which are more likely to have more in-depth knowledge about SV.

A: We appreciate your comment. We also believe that the academic background of the participants may have effectively influenced their perceptions on this issue. However, we would like to clarify that, in our study, the concept of “violence” is understood in a broader sense, consistent with legal and criminological definitions. Coercion, intimidation, and verbal aggression are recognised forms of violence and are integral to the concept of sexual violence as a crime. In our perspective, limiting violence to physical acts would overlook these critical dimensions. Our analysis therefore considers both physical and non-physical forms of violence, in line with established conceptual frameworks in the field.

 

“How were the scenarios developed? What was the rationale behind the aspects included?”

A:  The hypothetical scenarios were developed using the Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012) and relevant literature (McMahon & Farmer, 2011; Metz, Myers & Wallace, 2021; Nolan, 2018), ensuring an ambiguous form of sexual violence and harassment to capture their complexity while avoiding scenarios that were potentially painful or likely to generate a strong emotional impact. The vignette methodology requires the formulation of hypothetical but realistic situations, thus we chose to develop plausible descriptions in which participants could recognize and identify themselves. Fictional characters with common Portuguese names (“Maria” and “João”) were used.

 

“Given the emphasis on sex, all quotes should be contextualised with the sex of the participant.” 

A:  Thank you for the observation. We have now added information regarding the sex and age of the participant on each quote.

 

“The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context.”

A: Thank you. We have developed this argument and added more references corroborating this idea.

 

“This argument “However, it should be emphasized that opinions diverged concerning male victims since 50.6% of participants considered it to be frequent, and 49.4% classified it as not frequent (see Table 9). This disparity likely reflects the broader societal tendency to underrecognize male victims, with what is reported likely not corresponding at all to reality” makes it seem like sexual violence is not a gendered crime which goes against what has been consistently found in the literature. Needs clarification.”

A: Thank you for this observation. We agree that this needs more clarification. These results may illustrate the persistent underrecognition and social invisibility of male victimization, which does not contradict that women are the primary victims. 

 

“Is this sentence “allegations from female victims and male aggressors are generally regarded as more credible than those from male victims of a female aggressor” a conclusion from the study or from the literature?”

A: It’s a conclusion from the study. We asked participants if, based on the scenario presented, the victim's allegations would be considered more credible, if the victim and the perpetrator were of the opposite sex to what was described. Table 3 shows that, in terms of the perceived credibility of the allegation, 82.7% of the sample considered that it would not be credible in a situation with a female aggressor and a male victim. In contrast, Table 4 shows that 85.5% of the sample considered that a scenario with a female victim and a male aggressor would be more credible.Thank you.

 

Second Revisor

 

“Most notably, the abstract is a little too short and would benefit from the inclusion of the findings, even if it is just a mention of the overarching theme of “Severity” and its 4 subthemes.”

A: Thank you for your observation. We’ve arranged that. 

 

“It is recommended that the authors include a note around the statistics to highlight that these rates of SV are heavily impacted by underreporting and it is likely that these rates are much higher than what is officially reported.”

A: Changes have been made on this. Thank you.

 

“Line 99 to 101 needs a citation”

A: Thank you for this observation. We added a citation. 

 

“There is a lot of existing research around SV victim-blaming and the media, it would be good to see the authors engage with a little more research here.” 

A:  We have added some information on this interesting topic. Thank you for your input.

 

“There may be value in adding a small section surrounding the rape myths that impact male victim-survivors as one of the scenarios look at male victims. Consider engaging with Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson 1992 and Chapleau, Oswald & Russell 2008.”

A: Thank you for this comment, it is very pertinent. We have added information on this. 

 

“The overarching theme of ‘severity’ would benefit from a brief definition or description. Even if it is just a line or two.” 

A: Thank you for your feedback. We have added information to make it more explicit.

 

“Something for consideration: there may be added value in adding gender and age alongside the participants’ quotes”

A:  Thank you for this observation. We’ve added that information. 

 

“Line 505 to 507 – consider adding some literature here around the impact of rape myths on male victim-survivors of sexual violence, there is a lot of research out there that addresses this. This discussion point could also be expanded on.”

A: Thank you for your feedback. We added more information and explored this point.

 

“Line 559 to 573 needs more engage with literature here, consider searching “male victims of sexual assault and luck” in Google scholar, you should find some recent and highly valuable pieces here.

A: We have added some discussion on this. Thank you for your input.

 

“Iine 209 and 210: it should be ‘seven men’ not ‘seven man’. This issue appears multiple times throughout this section. Please review.”

A: This has been corrected. Thank you for this observation.

 

Third Revisor

“Overall, the paper needs a clearer and more consistent distinction between sex and gender. The terms appear to be used interchangeably, and the authors say they are undertaking a gendered analysis of responses, but they have only collected participants sex, not gender.”

A: Thank you for your feedback. Changes were made on this issue. 

 

“Additionally, the analysis could give greater credit to participants for their often thoughtful and nuanced engagement with gendered norms. Many responses reflect a sophisticated understanding of how gender shapes perceptions of sexual violence, and acknowledging this more explicitly would strengthen the paper.”

A: We thank you for this suggestion, and we agree it makes a lot of sense. We’ve now explored this in the discussion section. 

 

“Finally, while some participants minimised the scenario, it is not sufficiently acknowledged that the majority of respondents did view the situation as somewhat or very serious—this important finding should be more clearly reflected in the discussion.”

 A: Thank you. However, we do agree that the results do show that the majority of the respondents did view the situation as somewhat or very serious. In Table 3, we can see that 86.5% had that perception, and in Table 4, 86.7% also viewed the scenario as somewhat or very serious. 

 

“Your review currently presents statistics on sexual violence in binary terms (men and women), but does not include data on LGBTQ+ communities, who experience disproportionately high rates of sexual violence—particularly trans and gender diverse people. Including this information would offer a more inclusive and accurate account of prevalence and align with best practices in the field.”

 A: Thank you for your suggestion. This study explored sexual violence in binary terms and in hetero-normative affective relationships. Nevertheless, we agree that it is relevant to include data on LGBTQ+ communities. On that thought, we added information about this in the Literature review section. 

 

“You might also consider integrating discussion of other intersecting factors (e.g., race, disability, migration status) that can increase vulnerability to sexual violence, to deepen the intersectional framing of your review.”

A: We thank you for this suggestion, and we agree it makes a lot of sense. However, we consider that it would be more an issue for future recommendations than to consider in our discussion, since as it is not aligned with the focus of our study, it would drift away from the core ideas. Nevertheless, since we consider this a very interesting suggestion, we include it in future studies suggestions.

 

“Your analysis focuses on sex-based rather than gender-based differences.” 

A: We thank you. This has been corrected.

 

“Why was sexuality not collected in the demographics? It would be helpful to explain why sexuality was not included as a demographic variable, particularly given the growing body of research suggesting that sexual orientation may shape students’ experiences and perceptions of sexual violence.”

A: Thank you for your input! The primary focus of this work was to examine the role of broader social perceptions and subtle forms of sexual violence, in binary terms and in hetero-normative cis affective relationships, without stratifying results by sexual orientation. While acknowledging that sexual orientation may indeed shape experiences and perceptions of sexual violence, such analyses were beyond the scope of the present study. We recognize, however, that the absence of this variable is a limitation. Future research would benefit from incorporating sexual orientation as a demographic factor, thereby allowing a more nuanced understanding of how sexuality may intersect with experiences and perceptions of sexual violence.

 

“Since your analysis includes a gendered reading of student responses, it would enhance the depth and interpretive clarity of your findings to include demographic details (e.g., sex and age) alongside each quoted participant.”

A: We added this information now. Thank you.

 

“In the first paragraph of the discussion, the central argument could be clarified, as it’s currently a little difficult to follow.”

A: We have clarified it to make it easier to understand and follow. Thank you for this feedback.

 

“The statement, “Conversely, the situation also seems to have been recognized as not very serious or not serious at all, since it did not involve an extreme form of SV (e.g., rape),” would benefit from greater precision.”

A: Thank you. This has now been clarified. 

 

“The identification and validation of SV therefore seems to depend on the occurrence of extreme and violent outcome, such as rape, and the involvement of strangers…”, it would be useful to reconcile this claim with your earlier finding that the majority of participants did view the scenario as somewhat or very serious.”

A: Thank you. We’ve changed this. 

 

Fourth Revisor

“Overall, the paper needs more thought between what it sets out to do and what it does. For example, the main goal described in the abstract is that “this study aimed to explore university students' perceptions and legitimization of the grey area of SV, as well as potential gender differences in these perceptions” but the methodology chosen of having two different vignettes with differences just on the sex of the perpetrator and victim applied to similar groups indicates that the main goal is to compare students perceptions of the grey area of sv based on the gender of those involved.”

A: Thank you for your valuable feedback! We agree that the paper needed more clarity at this level, and we have changed this information. 

 

“The finding that “our results indicated that many participants trivialized subtle forms of SV, often perceiving incidents without overt physical force as less severe” seems inaccurate, as in both scenario 1 and 2 most perceived it as somewhat serious or very serious and considered it to be sexual violence.”

A: Thank you. We’ve changed this. 

 

“Moreover, from where the findings about gender differences come from (i.e., "notably, significant gender differences emerged: female participants were more inclined to recognize these behaviours as abusive and to view the allegations as credible, whereas male participants tended to downplay the severity")? Is it from the qual analysis and the analysis of prevalence? Significant is a statistically strong word when this did not seem to be actively tested in the analysis. It seems overstated.”

A: Thank you for your comment. We changed this information.

 

“The introduction/literature review should also briefly discuss what is criminalised in Portugal in relation to SV and sexual harassment and a discussion of what constitutes consent.”

A: We have added literature that addresses this issue. Thank you for this observation. 

 

“This section should more explicitly discuss the context and importance of the paper.”

A: We have explored more of this. Thank you for your input. 

 

“In the data analysis section it is mentioned that “we used the previously conducted literature review and the factors presented in the instrument Scale of Beliefs about Sexual Violence (Martins et al., 2012)”. This scale needs to be explicitly discussed in the introduction and in the analysis.”

A: Thank you. We added information on this. 

 

“In the methodology, the procedure of getting ethics approval if there was one should be described, as well as process of translating the quotes for the paper e.g., if the translation was confirmed by another researcher, etc.”

A: Thank you. We added information on this.

 

“Some participants related to the scenario and explained they had experienced something similar, were there any referrals for support services or any sort of aftercare for those who filled the survey?”

A: We did give our contact information, so that participants could reach out if they felt the need for clarification or support.

 

“The discussion should also be reviewed to accommodate some of the points here made, and to more explicitly discuss the results within the local Portuguese context – e.g., the potential importance of the legal criminal definition; some of the quotes such as “It was a clear case of sexual harassment, but there was never a position of force or violence towards the victim” may indicate a knowledge of legislation.”

A: We have added some discussion on this. Thank you for your input.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract mentions gender and then sex (lines 10 and 11) double-check if both are correct. 

Line 24: I don't understand what the "despite being in the minority" refers to, a specific sex? Sentence could be reworded to be clearer. 

Line 630: typo "violencee"

Line 733: typo "2021). ."

Line 772: typo "communities.."

Line 776: typo "Moreover, , "

 

Author Response

R: "Abstract mentions gender and then sex (lines 10 and 11) double-check if both are correct." 

A: Thank you for your input. Both are correct. 

 

R: "Line 24: I don't understand what the "despite being in the minority" refers to, a specific sex? Sentence could be reworded to be clearer."
A: Changes have been made on this. Thank you.

 

R: Line 630: typo "violencee"

Line 733: typo "2021). ."

Line 772: typo "communities.."

Line 776: typo "Moreover, , "

A: We fixed it. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments, the authors have done a great job in addressing the changes rasied!

Author Response

R: "No additional comments, the authors have done a great job in addressing the changes raised!"

A: We appreciate your feedback. Thank you. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken on the reviewer feedback well and I can now recommend this article for publication. 

Author Response

R: "The authors have taken on the reviewer feedback well and I can now recommend this article for publication."

A: We appreciate your feedback. Thank you.